JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner prays that the orders dated 17th March, 1978, 17th December, 1998 and 13th July, 2001, passed by the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner be set aside. Copies of these orders have been produced on record as Annexures P.1 to P.3. 2. Respondent No. 4 filed an application under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was alleged inter alia that the petitioner and certain other persons were in unauthorised occupation of land vesting in the Panchayat. The petitioner contested the application. However, the Assistant Collector found that the petitioner was in occupation of Khasra No. 563. He had no right to the land. He was, thus, ordered to be evicted. He was also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per hectare by way of damages for use and occupation of the land. The petitioner filed an appeal. The Collector found that the petitioner had encroached upon land measuring 2 karams in width instead of 3 karams, as had been found by the Assistant Collector. Still, the petitioner filed a representation. It was dismissed by the Commissioner on 13th July, 2001. Hence this petition. 3. Shri Manohar Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land in dispute was not a part of the Shamlat land, as defined in section 2(g) of the Act. Thus, the award of damages was wholly arbitrary and illegal. 4. It is conceded that this point was not raised before any of the Authorities. However, the Counsel submits that it is a pure question of law. 5. We are unable to accept this contention. The petitioner having not raised the issue, he cannot be permitted to raise it for the first time in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In any case, even on examination of merits, we find that the land used or reserved for the benefit of the village community, including streets, lanes, play grounds etc. falls within the definition of Shamlat as contained in section 2(g) of the Act. It has been found as a fact that the land was being used as a passage by the village community. It was thus a part of the Shamlat-deh. Thus, it falls within the provision of section 2(g)(4) of the Act. 6. No other point has been raised. 7. It has been found as a fact that the land was being used as a passage by the village community. It was thus a part of the Shamlat-deh. Thus, it falls within the provision of section 2(g)(4) of the Act. 6. No other point has been raised. 7. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is consequently dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.